cheesebeef said:
I agree, but you never know what some people might like; even the Jazz.
Jackson is Back
- Thread starter cepstrum
- Start date
I agree, but you never know what some people might like; even the Jazz.
Chaplin
Better off silent
D-Dogg said:
I hope you just support him as a basketball player, but he's a real scumbag in reality.
Chaplin said:
As is Magic and Worthy, Jordan, etc. As are a lot of people. I don't care; he's not my kids' godfather. He's a player, and a damn fine one. I don't care how he likes to get his freak on, if he has herpes, what he eats for dinner, whatever. I would care if he had raped that chick, but I followed that case very closely and there's absolutely no way he would have been convicted or even close. I highly doubt her story, but of course we'll never know. I wouldn't have supported him had he been guilty of that...just as I can't stand Leonard Little.
Just play ball and win my team some championships; and stay away from colorado..
fordronken
Registered User
D-Dogg said:
I was with you all the way until "...win my team some championships..."
elindholm
edited for content
Wrong. Kobe resented Shaq because Shaq alienated him from Day One. Turned the lockerroom against an 18 year old kid. Read Mad Game by Lazenby for this and more, and the hiring of Phil and backstory, etc. (Remainder of long conjecture deleted.)
I haven't read Jackson's self-serving open diary and don't intend to, but I've read the excerpts. I don't understand how you can argue that Jackson can suddenly start "giving Bryant respect" and Bryant will buy it. The excerpts from Jackson's book repeatedly portray Bryant as selfish, narrow-minded, and immature. What's Jackson going to do now? Say he didn't mean it? Cynically praise Bryant for having grown up? Pretend it never happened?
(By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bryant has handled himself much better than O'Neal in this whole business, but that in no way excuses Jackson for having left Bryant out to dry, over and over again. Bryant won't forgive Jackson's cowardice easily, and there's no reason he should.)
As far as the Lakers' immediate future goes, I'm reminded of when Jerry West went to Memphis. Everyone started saying that West was such a genius, Memphis was going to be an elite team within a couple of years. Well, it didn't happen. Guess what? You have to have talent on the floor, not in suits on the bench or in the front office.
The Laker roster has Bryant, Odom, and a bunch of scrubs. That's a decent core, but no genius can turn that into a title contender in two years. Where are they going to get the rest of their players? They don't have any free-agent money, they don't have much in the way of draft position, and they certainly don't have any tradeable assets beyond the top two. They'll be on the playoff bubble, sure, but to call them contenders in two years is absurd.
I haven't read Jackson's self-serving open diary and don't intend to, but I've read the excerpts. I don't understand how you can argue that Jackson can suddenly start "giving Bryant respect" and Bryant will buy it. The excerpts from Jackson's book repeatedly portray Bryant as selfish, narrow-minded, and immature. What's Jackson going to do now? Say he didn't mean it? Cynically praise Bryant for having grown up? Pretend it never happened?
(By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bryant has handled himself much better than O'Neal in this whole business, but that in no way excuses Jackson for having left Bryant out to dry, over and over again. Bryant won't forgive Jackson's cowardice easily, and there's no reason he should.)
As far as the Lakers' immediate future goes, I'm reminded of when Jerry West went to Memphis. Everyone started saying that West was such a genius, Memphis was going to be an elite team within a couple of years. Well, it didn't happen. Guess what? You have to have talent on the floor, not in suits on the bench or in the front office.
The Laker roster has Bryant, Odom, and a bunch of scrubs. That's a decent core, but no genius can turn that into a title contender in two years. Where are they going to get the rest of their players? They don't have any free-agent money, they don't have much in the way of draft position, and they certainly don't have any tradeable assets beyond the top two. They'll be on the playoff bubble, sure, but to call them contenders in two years is absurd.
D-Dogg said:Oh BIM. You really need to embrace the guy.
JPlay
JPlay
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 0
Dude Phil Jackson in whipped. His girlfriend threatened not to give up the ******** if he didn't sign up to coach the Lakers again.
He's coaching for all the wrong reasons...1.) ******** 2.) Money
He's coaching for all the wrong reasons...1.) ******** 2.) Money
elindholm said:
Well, the end of the book, and of course never quoted by the media (but Phil did address it in his PC yesterday) is that Phil and Kobe had a meeting, cleared the air and improved their relationship greatly at the end of the season (final two months). Now I agree, I would never want Phil coaching me after the crap he'd said about me, but again, I would have gone media sniping on Shaq back in 97. Kobe's a very patient dude and is addicted to winning. He'll do what he has to, and right now, that is embracing Phil.
Regarding other tradeable assets, we have future draft picks, expiring K's in Devean and I believe Slava, and Caron. We have the number 10 pick and need both a PG and a PF, the two areas this draft is strong in. There is a credible rumor out there that we may move Devean, a second rounder, next year's number 1 and I think Slava for Jonathan Bender and the #17 pick.
There's a lot to do, just because you are capped out doesn't mean you can't make moves.
JPlay said:
I question your priorities if you think those are the wrong reasons. I think that EVERYTHING we do as males boils down to these two reasons. Heck, I'd even argue only number 1.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
Next offseason that 16 million dollar contract with one year left on it for Brian Grant will be awfully enticing to teams wantign to get under the salary cap.
Like I said earlier in another thread - I won't lose any sleep over this unless either Amare or Yao forgo signing contract extensions... if they do - the lure of LA's bright lights, big endorsements will start to make me nervous.
elindholm
edited for content
Next offseason that 16 million dollar contract with one year left on it for Brian Grant will be awfully enticing to teams wantign to get under the salary cap.
Right, I remember how much value Gugliotta had during the last year of his deal.
Right, I remember how much value Gugliotta had during the last year of his deal.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
didn't we pawn him off to Utah to open up cap space? Or was that the previous year? Just saying - it's not like they won't have things teams want - you throw a contract like that out there along with A Lamar Odom or Caron Butler and it could really help a club.
elindholm
edited for content
didn't we pawn him off to Utah to open up cap space?
You don't remember that deal? The Suns got raked over the coals. They had to include a first-round pick plus cash just to unload him. It didn't open up any cap space that the Suns weren't already going to have.
The value of expiring contracts to a rebuilding team is vastly overstated. Teams don't give up good players for expiring contracts, so a rebuilding team is usually better off keeping the contract themselves and then trying to make something out of the ensuing financial breathing room.
You don't remember that deal? The Suns got raked over the coals. They had to include a first-round pick plus cash just to unload him. It didn't open up any cap space that the Suns weren't already going to have.
The value of expiring contracts to a rebuilding team is vastly overstated. Teams don't give up good players for expiring contracts, so a rebuilding team is usually better off keeping the contract themselves and then trying to make something out of the ensuing financial breathing room.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
I just won't put anything past the Lakers in terms of them rising back to the top - they never stay down for long - missing the playoffs something like only 2 times in the last 26 years - that's insane.
elindholm
edited for content
missing the playoffs something like only 2 times in the last 26 years - that's insane.
Of course it helps when your roster has players like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant.
As I already said, I think the Lakers will be on the playoff bubble. It certainly won't surprise me if they get in. But they are a long, long way from being a title contender, and no amount of mystique, history, or smug zen-speak is going to change that.
Of course it helps when your roster has players like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant.
As I already said, I think the Lakers will be on the playoff bubble. It certainly won't surprise me if they get in. But they are a long, long way from being a title contender, and no amount of mystique, history, or smug zen-speak is going to change that.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
no - but you could said the same just as easily about the Suns just 1.5 years ago saddled with bad contracts and the #9 pick in the draft. If Isiah Thomas is out there, the Lakers have a chance. We're living proof of that!
besides - can someone tell me what is the difference between the Lakers last year and the Sonics last year? Look at their rosters - both have GREAT SGs (Kobe/Ray), Solid-All Star caliber Small Forwards(Rashard Lewis/Odom), another decent swing-man (Vlad/Butler), the main pieces are somewhat similar - the Sonics just had better health with their bigs all year long -not to mention they actually had a coach instead of a burned out Rudy T and then a Shambling Mass in Frank Hamblen - not to mention big injuries to both Kobe and Odom.
With the mid-level exception, the 10th pick the draft, one of the best coache sof all time and a little health, the Lakers will be a tough team to deal with - not a title contender mind you, but if you're telling me they can't achieve the same type of modicum of success as those J Kidd-led Suns team, I think you're justifiable Laker hating is clouding your judgement.
Last edited:
elindholm
edited for content
no - but you could said the same just as easily about the Suns just 1.5 years ago saddled with bad contracts and the #9 pick in the draft.
Okay, this is the last response I am going to make to you in this thread, because you are just being argumentative and it is tiring.
First of all, the Suns drafted Stoudemire three years ago, not two. So when they went into their big salary dump, Stoudemire was already on the roster. Do the Lakers, right now, have anyone on a rookie contract with that sort of potential? Of course not. Heck, it's debatable whether they even have someone of Joe Johnson's potential among their prospects.
Secondly, once the Suns dumped salary, they had only one player left on a big deal, Marion. Unless the Lakers trade either Bryant or Odom, they will have two. That means their potential for cap room is not nearly as great as the Suns' was. Also, keep in mind that Marion's contract isn't that big, by the standards of "max" deals; Odom's is about the same and Bryant's is much larger. And if the Lakers do trade Bryant or Odom, they might get better, but they won't get the massive influx of talent that they'd need to be a contender by getting rid of one of their two best players.
To follow the Suns' path, the Lakers would have to find someone willing to take Grant (which is barely possible) and dump Odom for cap space, as the Suns did with Marbury. Then they would be able to build around Bryant and ... no one, except I guess Butler, who incidentally will have to get a raise next summer. The Suns were able to build around Marion, Stoudemire, and Johnson. There's a big difference.
You can argue until you're blue in the face -- and I suspect you will -- but I can guarantee that the Lakers will not be "title contenders" within two years. If there were a way to guarantee being paid, I would gladly wager any sum of money at even odds that the Lakers will not make the Conference Finals in either of the next two seasons.
Okay, this is the last response I am going to make to you in this thread, because you are just being argumentative and it is tiring.
First of all, the Suns drafted Stoudemire three years ago, not two. So when they went into their big salary dump, Stoudemire was already on the roster. Do the Lakers, right now, have anyone on a rookie contract with that sort of potential? Of course not. Heck, it's debatable whether they even have someone of Joe Johnson's potential among their prospects.
Secondly, once the Suns dumped salary, they had only one player left on a big deal, Marion. Unless the Lakers trade either Bryant or Odom, they will have two. That means their potential for cap room is not nearly as great as the Suns' was. Also, keep in mind that Marion's contract isn't that big, by the standards of "max" deals; Odom's is about the same and Bryant's is much larger. And if the Lakers do trade Bryant or Odom, they might get better, but they won't get the massive influx of talent that they'd need to be a contender by getting rid of one of their two best players.
To follow the Suns' path, the Lakers would have to find someone willing to take Grant (which is barely possible) and dump Odom for cap space, as the Suns did with Marbury. Then they would be able to build around Bryant and ... no one, except I guess Butler, who incidentally will have to get a raise next summer. The Suns were able to build around Marion, Stoudemire, and Johnson. There's a big difference.
You can argue until you're blue in the face -- and I suspect you will -- but I can guarantee that the Lakers will not be "title contenders" within two years. If there were a way to guarantee being paid, I would gladly wager any sum of money at even odds that the Lakers will not make the Conference Finals in either of the next two seasons.
elindholm
edited for content
not a title contender mind you, but if you're telling me they can't achieve the same type of modicum of success as those J Kidd-led Suns team
I overlooked this when saying that the post above would be my last. Don't twist my words around. The prediction I'm taking issue with is that the Lakers will be title contenders within two years. (Edit: I see you actually wrote "challenge for the title in 2007"). I've already said that I think they can get better. The Kidd-led Suns teams never made it out of the first round, so we aren't talking about an especially high standard there.
I overlooked this when saying that the post above would be my last. Don't twist my words around. The prediction I'm taking issue with is that the Lakers will be title contenders within two years. (Edit: I see you actually wrote "challenge for the title in 2007"). I've already said that I think they can get better. The Kidd-led Suns teams never made it out of the first round, so we aren't talking about an especially high standard there.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
you know Eric - no one's focring you to respond - I thought it made for interesting discussion - I guess not.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
Sheesh - I'm not twisting ANYTHING around - good lord - I was merely saying that NEXT year they could be just as good as those Kidd teams or even this Sonic team this year - I was basicaly back-tracking ON MY statement. Take a breath and look at your own signature and reailze we're not talking about the end of the world here - it ain't that big a deal.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
I won't say anything for fear of further scolding.
MaoTosiFanClub
The problem
Baron Davis?elindholm said:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,014
- Reaction score
- 67,542
elindholm said:
one last question here - is there a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote above? Challenging for the title isn't the same thing as "title contenders"? Not trying to be argumentative - just curious because I don't want my comments to be construed that they will be in the NBA finals in two years - they'll just be contenders 9which I stick by - unfortunately).
